Many in West Marin oppose the proposed replacement of the Green Bridge south of Point Reyes Station, according to an analysis of public comments released last week by Caltrans. Instead, they hope for a retrofit or repair of the existing bridge.
The analysis reflects ardent community concerns over the project, particularly traffic impacts. Caltrans also released a brief assessment of retrofitting, a traffic study and an assessment of how sea-level rise will impact the bridge, and will hold a community meeting next month.
The agency announced a plan to replace the 86-year-old bridge earlier this year, citing deterioration, seismic weakness and lack of compliance with current bridge design standards. Four replacement options were proposed: suspension-cable, concrete, short steel-truss, and long steel truss with a roof. The agency is now investigating additional options, including retrofitting the original—a possibility that is still deemed unlikely, and wasn’t originally on the table due to concerns over earthquake safety.
The original plan tenatively proposed a one-lane temporary bridge, to be used for up to three years during construction. This would cause major congestion, impacting travel by tourists, residents, and emergency vehicles.
“The economic and commercial effect of a major construction will cause deleterious and perhaps irreparable financial damage to the town of Pt. Reyes Station,” Point Reyes Station resident Robert Steinberg wrote in one of more than 70 comments the agency received. “Local jobs will be lost. It will also cause hardship to the residents of the nearby town’s of Inverness and Inverness Park.”
The agency is technically weighing three options, including a two-lane bridge or closing the crossing. The latter option, though highly unlikely, would route traffic through Olema—an 11-mile, approximately 20-minute detour.
Yet permitting and other requirements make finding an alternative that pleases everyone challenging. Because the bridge crosses Lagunitas Creek, home to at least seven endangered and threatened species, Caltrans also must consider input from other agencies including the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Coastal Commission. These groups favor an option that will keep new structures out of the creek and cause the fewest environmental impacts.
A new bridge would take at least two or three years to build, in part because of prohibitions on construction during sensitive times like nesting bird season.
The junction just south of the Green Bridge already backs up on weekends and busy holidays. Business owners worry that increased congestion could deter weekend visitors, affecting income. Emergency responders including the Inverness Public Utility District and the Marin County Fire Department say that the proposed project would delay paramedics and other emergency vehicles.
The traffic analysis released last week finds that delays on a one-lane bridge would be as long as 30 minutes during the heaviest weekend afternoon and evening traffic. Because the delay would be longer than 15 minutes, the project must obtain special permission from an agency committee. But a two-lane temporary bridge would largely eliminate those delays, according to the analysis.
“I think the odds are for a two-lane bridge,” said Caltrans project manager Oliver Iberia—though he stressed that nothing is certain until the environmental review process concludes.
Still, that solution is not without another problem: any temporary bridge would run through the nearby veterinary clinic’s property, and a bigger bridge would eat up more space. “This whole project is going to be about compromise because there is no solution that will make everyone happy,” Mr. Iberian said. “The temporary bridge detour is a good example. There will have to be tradeoffs. Part of scoping and the E.I.R. is that Caltrans can show its analysis of these tradeoffs.”
Concerns also include a change to the “character and scale” of the Green Bridge. To align with modern design standards, all versions of the new bridge shown to the public had shoulders, slightly wider lanes and a wider sidewalk, which adds up to a substantial width increase.
“The current bridge has historic and cultural value…Your current designs do not do this. The best alternative would be to work within the framework of the design of the current bridge,” Mr. Steinberg wrote in his comments.
It is possible, Mr. Iberian said, to modify some standards, like shoulder width, with a new bridge.
The agency is developing a full conceptual assessment of a retrofit, likely to be released next spring. This option will be also addressed in a forthcoming draft E.I.R. But a 10-page preliminary memo released last week cites numerous deficiencies in the current bridge. The concrete piers and connecting beams could fail during an earthquake. The existing supporting piles are of unknown stability, and should have new piles built around them. Fixing these issues would potentially require digging at least 16 feet into the creek embankment.
The cracked and weathered bridge deck would probably be replaced entirely. Repairing the corroded connections within the bridge would be challenging because the parts are so old. And retrofitting the steel truss would require temporary supports called falsework to keep the bridge in place as various components are addressed. Yet that falsework, and any other work carried out in the creek, would require approvals from other agencies.
The coastal commission did not comment on a possible retrofit—since it was not among the initial options proposed. It said it favors the long, covered steel truss bridge, since commission staff believes it fits with the scenic character yet requires no new supports to be installed in the creek.
That doesn’t jive with the public’s preference. Though most opposed a new bridge, those who made a choice preferred the short steel truss bridge, which looks the most like the Green Bridge. But that option requires new supports in the creek, which sports species like the endangered coho salmon—which the coastal commission is not likely to approve.
“They can choose to withhold [the permit]… until we do what is necessary to fulfill the conditions for a permit,” said Mr. Iberian. “That is a big deal.”
A draft environmental review, which will solicit more comments, is expected by the fall of 2016 at the earliest.
Caltrans plans to hold a second public meeting in Point Reyes next month. Cathleen Dorinson, who has helped rally community responses on the project, called on residents to read the scoping summary before the meeting to make “sure it says everything that we want it to say.”